Dharamveer Singh vs Hotel Corporation Of India & Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 6870 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 W.P.(C) 4647/2014 & CM No.9271/2014

                                                Decided on 16.12.2014

IN THE MATTER OF :
DHARAMVEER SINGH                                     ..... Petitioner
                        Through : Mr. U. Srivastava, Advocate with
                        petitioner in person.

                        versus

HOTEL CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS             ..... Respondents
                   Through : Ms. Meenakshi Sood, Advocate with
                   Ms. Rita Sethi, Dy. Manager in person.

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying

inter alia for issuance of directions to the respondents to consider his

case in the seniority list of Stewards in the feeder cadre for promotion

to the post of Captain against the vacancies that had arisen in the

year 2010, along with all the consequential benefits.

2. On 15.9.2014, when the petition was listed for admission,

learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner is

entitled for promotion to the post of Captain against the vacancies

that had arisen in the year 2010 for the reason that the respondents

had failed to communicate to him, the adverse remarks in his ACRs

since the year 2010. The aforesaid submission was countered by the

counsel for the respondents, who had stated that as per the records,

the adverse remarks in the ACRs for the year 2008 onwards were

communicated to the petitioner in writing and duly acknowledged by

him as having been received. She had sought leave to file a brief

affidavit in this regard. The said affidavit was filed by the

respondents and a rejoinder thereto was also filed by the petitioner.

3. Vide order dated 9.12.2014, counsel for the respondents was

directed to make available the relevant records, including a copy of

the letter dated 20.7.2010, referred to by the petitioner in his

representation dated 4.8.2010 and the mode of dispatch/receipt

thereof.

4. Records have been produced by the counsel for the

respondents for the perusal of the Court and also handed over to the

counsel for the petitioner for scrutiny. The said records reveal that

the adverse remarks in the petitioner's ACRs had been communicated

to him on 9.5.2009.

5. The petitioner, who is present in Court, concedes that the

aforesaid adverse ACRs were duly communicated to him. It is also not

denied by him that he did not seek review of the said ACRs within a

reasonable time.

6. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner states that having been

promoted to the post of Captain w.e.f. 23.7.2014, the petitioner does

not wish to press the present petition.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, along

with the pending application.

                                                   (HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 16, 2014                                     JUDGE
sk